Is this a good way to compare CPUs? I series VS. CORE 2 DUO

First, what is the difference between the I series and the Core 2 DUO Series? Are the I series a better processor all around? Or are there advantages and disadvantages?

Second, I compare CPUs by going to this website:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Is that a good way to decided if one CPU is better than another? Or does that ranking only measure one aspect of the CPU. If it is only one aspect, what aspect is it? THanks

 

IMHO there isn't. i7 (8 virtual cores) are good for software like rendering/cad/photoshop but not so much for gaming. i5 (4 virtual cores) are good for general purpose applications, office and gaming. C2D P series with large cache (but only 2 cores) maybe better than i5 in specific applications due to the cache. I don't know how cache affect e.g. gaming.

 

comparisons need to be made with a knowledge how thread-friendly the 'benchmark' software is.

 

I think, you can not find a way to compare them because each are better at different tasks depending on how many cores they can utilize. For example in 3dmark01 a daul core is alot better in that test than an i7 920XM, which beats a quad core QX9300 at it only because of the clock speed.

 

core i series on general are much better than Core 2 Duo.. even some of the bottom of the core i series CPU's seem to be doing better than Core 2 Duo ones..

 

What I'm doing is looking for best bang for your buck for a girl in college that uses the computer for word processor, powerpoint, internet (some but limited streaming), and not any gaming.

What about the I3 series? It looks like most of the I3 series and C2D are about the same in price. In particular, the i3-330M and t6600 and t 6670.



And then for my brother, he will be gaming and thinking about roughly the same CPUs as above. Yes, he will be getting a laptop with 1gb of dedicated video.

 

For those sort of tasks, a Core i3 processor or a Core 2 Duo would have plenty of power, more than she will ever really need. The i3-330M, T6600 and T6670 are all good choices, and the only reason I would avoid the Core 2 Duos is because the Core i3-equipped laptops may have better resale value down the road.

That depends on the games played, although in general, I would suggest a Core i5 processor. There's really no need for a Core i7 processor, as the CPU rarely bottlenecks the laptop in games. It's usually the GPU.

And speaking of the GPU, the amount of graphics memory is not a big factor in the performance of the GPU. For example, a GeForce 310M could have 1GB of dedicated graphics memory, but it is still a weak card. It can easily be outperformed by, say, an ATI Radeon 5650 with 512MB of dedicated graphics memory.

 

Thank you for that. Many companies stick extra memory into graphics cards so they can advertise it as "1GB" where in reality it does not need 1GB, or would be the same performance with 512MB. It is a pet peeve of mine when people identify their GPU by saying "Oh, I have a 1GB Nvidia." But it isn't their fault!

For general use I would say C2D are very capable... I rarely use my P8700 to its full potential (only when I'm running multi-threaded distributed computing experiments) and would definitely say its performance is more than adequate. For gaming I'd recommend i3/i5 processors as they offer better performance. However, laptops are much more GPU limited when it comes to gaming, so look for a newer graphics solution. Furthermore i3/i5 are new and will probably be considered "good" for quite some time.

An in depth comparison is available at Anandtech. The page I linked compares a C2D P8700 (2.53 GHz) to a i5 540M (2.53 GHz) so it should give you a very rough estimate of their respective abilities at the same clock rate.

 

Not necessarily the same clock rate... the i5-540M can clock up to 3.06GHz if it's under 35W dissipation (turbo boost). The P8700 is 2.53GHz, period. It is not a representative improvement when talking about the i3 lines, which only have hyperthreading and no turbo boost. With the i3, you should see very similar clock-for-clock performance to a Core 2 Duo.

 

Shall we have a thread on Processor with Windows Experience Index?
(I know it is not an awesomely accurate benchmark but for the sake for comparsion)
Anyway I am pretty sure the lowest end 2.13GHZ Core i3 330M outperforms a 2.4GHZ P8600 slightly.

 

For Core 2 Duo I'd recommend a "P" class chip due to its much lower power consumption, i.e. less heat, longer battery life. "T" class chips are 35W vs. "P" at 28W.

 

I'm not sure anyone in this thread is even suggesting a core 2. A core I series will be faster in all aspects, gaming or not. The whole quad vs dual debate has been dead for a long time,let's move on.

 

Actually, i've got a T9400 and it undervolts quite well too... running at lower voltage than P9500... Anyways , generally , the battery life difference isn't much between T and P series and if u get a t series , u usually get a better processor for the same price compared to a T series.

 

This is true, but P series also undervolts. Although like overclocking, you have no guarantees how much you can undervolt either.

 

In it self Passmark CPU is a good benchmark. The problem is that list. There are many errors in it.

Anyone can submit their results. Some people forget to put Windows in High performance mode or are stilling running on batteries. There for the list can not be trusted.

 

Doesn't IDA count anymore?

It can be possible for Core2 to use DDR2 or DDR3.

Typically newer architecture should bring better performance.

From your requirements it sounds like you could probably go with a netbook and Atom CPU for what you want.

Core2 is getting a bit old now and IMO if I were your brother and could wait ~3 months I'd probably look at Sandy Bridge instead. Maybe not so much difference for gaming at the present time but generally should be a better CPU than icore.